please please please, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this point right now today, haven't congress and the president actually cut taxes? i.e. during this period in the graph where employment has fallen, the effective tax rate has gone down, hasn't it (when you consider the reductions in firpta/fica/medicare deductions)?

So doesn't that actually say that tax cuts alone don't get people back to work?

Also remember that Reagan didn't come into his presidency at the start of an economic decline. More like he deficit spent his way out of one.

I still say the federal government needs more accountability. We have more than enough money if it were managed properly. Tax cuts may not create jobs but, on the other hand, tax increases may limit growth. IMHO, just increasing taxes will not trim the deficit, it will just encourage more spending.

In 2010, Christina D. Romer published her paper entitled “The Macrcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes”. Although the chart above appears to suggest that there is no relationship between tax rates and the economy, she disagreed. She notes that the economy is impacted by numerous factors (wars, deficits, oil prices, etc) so that expecting the economy (GDP) to move in one direction, only because of a tax increase or decrease, is far too simplistic. For example, the increased tax rates to fund the Korean war did not decrease the GDP, the impact of the war on the economy increased the GDP despite the tax increase. Just because taxes changes don’t direct the economy, does not mean that they don't impact it significantly.
To try to eliminate factors like the Korean War, Romer focused on taxes that were meant to either increase the rate of economic growth (e.g., the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts), or to reduce the budget deficit (e.g., the Clinton tax increase)(what she calls “exogenous” tax changes). Looking at such tax changes, her conclusion is that: “In short, tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output.”
And before you dismiss her as a conservative puppet master, you should realize that at the time the paper was published in 2010, Christina Romer was the Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors. Her overall conclusion:
“The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.”
What I take from this is that increasing taxes won’t kill the economy, as some conservatives claim. But it likely may/will have a harmful influence on the economy at a time when it is already weak.

Also Carter didn't use the Fed and drive interest rates to zero to kick start the economy. Mortgages at that time were 13%. Apples and Oranges are great for puppet mastering people to believe anything you want.

Only reason tax increases did not hurt the economy during a war is because the economy heats up due to the increased production thus jobs. Only problem is, the economy only heated because of deficit spending. It is not a real market. It is printed money. Government is supposed to be a shock absorber. Stimulate during the down and take back during the good times.

No. I am saying he cut taxes, and terrorists took down two buildings and turned our economy upside down. Those tax cuts MAY have kept us from sinking from a recession to a depression. When the economy sinks, employment will decrease.

I really doubt the claim that terrorists taking down those two building turned our economy upside down. Although with Bush's helped they succeeded in doing exactly that... Queue the C&P of quotes from congress.

Romney is promising a return to free-market, supply-side policies on taxes, trade, regulation, and spending while Obama is focused on the redistribution of wealth, the redistribution of jobs, and he also attempts to convince voters that he can supply them with free health care. Public sector jobs are necessary, but we should be hiring the best person for the job--not filling quotas. Creating new governmental agencies or redistributing money does little to encourage economic growth just as too much regulation is just as damaging to growth as is not enough.

^I love how you and other GOP diehards try to portray your candidates as business-savy, America first, citizen interests first and somehow you have been blessed with the smarts to see that the GOP is for the intellects; while portraying democrat-voters as undeducated, head-in-the-sand, hands out waiting for govt' handout egnoramouses. For you to believe what any politician promises (Republican or Democrat), makes you appear as gullible as the democrat-party voter you try to demonize in your pro-Romney line of BS. The etch-a-sketch candidate will say anything to win votes. I even heard he was trying to convince the NAACP in his speech today that he was black.

And how quickly you Reagan worshippers forget that he raised taxes four times during his presidency. How many times has Obama raised taxes?

And Paul, our economy began to suffer months before 9/11. And this is what a Reagan Economist said about the Bush Tax cuts:
"Economists: Bush Tax Cuts Did Little To Boost The Economy

Former Reagan Economist Bruce Bartlett: "The 2001 Tax Cut Did Nothing To Stimulate The Economy." In a post on The New York Times' Economix blog, economist Bruce Bartlett -- a former adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush -- wrote that not only did the Bush tax cuts fail to stimulate the economy, but contrary to Scott's claim that revenue "jumped substantially" during the Bush years, it actually fell as a percentage of GDP:

The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion. [The New York Times, Economix, 6/12/12]

Bartlett: Bush Tax Cuts "Did Not" Increase Rate Of Economic Growth. Bartlett wrote in a previous Economix blog post of the lack of an effect on economic growth the Bush tax cuts had:

It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.

By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.

Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year -- barely above the postwar average. [The New York Times, Economix, 7/26/11]"

unfortunately tax cuts and increases are not seen immediately. Clinton did nothing for the economy. Well, except he loosened money and we all know how that worked. Overheated stock market and right on through to the over heated housing market. In 1997 Newt and the Republican congress passed a even bigger tax cut and the economy took off even more.

One thing you forget, Reagan in 1981 lowered the tax rate for the wealthiest from 70% to 50%. He then raised taxes almost every year. Mostly consumption taxes, social security deal with Tip O'Neal. The middle class ended up paying more in taxes than before.

You have to remember when things got good. Reagan through the government invested considerable money in technology that ultimately took off near the end of Bush 1 and through Clinton. Bush 2 inherited the end of the easing of money which created the housing boom and fail. He asked congress to do something about it, but they did nothing about it.

Presidents can not do a ton to instantly change the economy. All they can do is lay plans that effect the future such as laws that make it harder for businesses to do business or environmental laws and treaties that ultimately manipulate markets in the future.

Jeremy, I did not mean to imply that Dems. were uneducated and waiting on handouts. What I was trying to say was this administration prioritized social issues as opposed to dealing with the economic crisis we are currently experiencing. In addition, the policies set forth by this administration have caused so much uncertainty and bickering between both sides that investing is risky, so that is one reason why growth has been so slow. With the amount of stimulus that has been pumped into the market, we should be doing a lot better than what we are now. To me, with this much uncertainty—taxes, health care, EPA regulations—hiring is not a priority.

As noted earlier. There are many factors that go into the #s. Not just tax cuts alone. What do you think would have happened if there were no tax cuts? Do you think the tax cuts would have had a more positive impact on the economy if the 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

Think of it this way. The economy was slipping into a recession. Do you think it would be better to give people more money to spend, or take more money out?

As noted earlier. There are many factors that go into the #s. Not just tax cuts alone. What do you think would have happened if there were no tax cuts? Do you think the tax cuts would have had a more positive impact on the economy if the 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

Think of it this way. The economy was slipping into a recession. Do you think it would be better to give people more money to spend, or take more money out?

I don't understand how tax cuts put more money into the economy. I think we are all well aware that the govt isn't hoarding money.

If you make 100K and have to pay tax at 35% how much do you have net? Now if that 35% is reduced to lets say 30% how much do you have? You have more right? BTW, I didn't say it puts it into the economy, but it does give you more to spend if you wish.

I don't see how you can say it puts more into the economy. If the govt takes my taxes and then puts it back into the economy I can't see a difference WRT money in the economy, I've long said people just don't use basic math skills to grasp the problem of money leaving the economy. A 1/2 trillion trade deficit should be the elephant in the room. Regardless of the other aspects of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, you can't say it reduces money in the economy.

I didn't say it put more money into the economy. That is open for debate.I know I typically spend more money when I have it.Usually at places that help our local economy. Last I checked, the government wasn't buying from our local merchants. I would rather keep my money than give it to the government to piss away.

I didn't say it put more money into the economy. That is open for debate.I know I typically spend more money when I have it.Usually at places that help our local economy. Last I checked, the government wasn't buying from our local merchants. I would rather keep my money than give it to the government to piss away.

Three things in that post. 1) We were talking taking money from the economy. So your first statement seems like some kind of a backtrack. 2) Where ever the govt is spending the money is where the people are that are buying from the local merchants. 3) It's not about what you'd rather have.

The economy doesn't care whether you are pissing it away or the govt is pissing it away. Just make sure you piss it back into the economy.

The government is in debt so not all money makes it back to the economy if a certain amount is being used to pay down the debt. Many billions leave our economy and go directly to third world country programs so not all money makes it back. Government does not make products that attract outside money (aka from foreign source/ trade deficit). Eventually if the government erodes the ability for private business to attract outside money into the economy, the businesses will shrink. When the businesses shrink, the government will loose it's tax base because the government can not tax a government worker enough to make up the difference. The only way for the government to make up the difference is to print more money.

Its obvious that we will not agree on the issue. I strongly believe that the people and private business should support the economy, and be the responsible party to fund GDP. Not uncle sam via higher taxes to support its negligence.

^Uncle Sam's negligence is due to the wishes of the people and our inability to focus on what's important. Look at my post in the Higgs Boson thread. I made a statement that making hard decisions about research spending vs other spending was dwarfed by the egregious spending for Bush's War in Iraq. Instead of anyone commenting on the correctness of that, I got an argument from a Bush apologist.

Jeremy, I did not mean to imply that Dems. were uneducated and waiting on handouts.

I would argue that the average democrat voter is in fact substantially less educated and certainly more likely to be looking for handouts like a baby bird in a nest sticking its head up, mouth wide open looking for freebies from people like me.

It's the less educated and freeloaders that have the most to gain from Democratic presidents.

I would speculate that by virtue of being on a wakeboarding forum most here are in fact well off enough to be able to enjoy recreational sports. That any of you would support Obama is mind boggling. Obama not only wants to take from your pockets money for him and his underachieving ilk, he indirectly by virtue of making you work more for less is taking away boarding time.

I would argue that the average democrat voter is in fact substantially less educated and certainly more likely to be looking for handouts like a baby bird in a nest sticking its head up, mouth wide open looking for freebies from people like me.

^Few are more uneducated than a right wing fundamentalist. You couldn't say a bad thing about Bush to them. They actually thought that starting wars in the ME was a sign of the 2nd coming of Christ. And that put them above the rest of the Republicans who had no better reason for supporting the Iraq war other than they apparently were afraid that Saddam was coming to get them.

Go back and listen to Romney at the convention in 2008. Jump forward to 8:00. He's a war monger who still couldn't see the road to ruin that Bush set us on.

^case in point, ignorant populace, sitting at their computers bought with my tax dollars, swilling cheap hooch out of a paper bag, lamenting their own woes, blaming everyone for their ails but themselves, have found themselves their own private Gueverra to worship.

^case in point, ignorant populace, sitting at their computers bought with my tax dollars, swilling cheap hooch out of a paper bag, lamenting their own woes, blaming everyone for their ails but themselves, have found themselves their own private Gueverra to worship.

I could have sworn I bought my computer with my own money, actually now that I think about it when I brought my computer home it said courtesy of Troy Deschamps.

I'm not surprised at all by any of Troy's posts. Sounds like your typical right-wing, GOP, redneck, hillbilly rhetoric I hear everyday here in TN. But since you are so much smarter than me, look back at Romney's time as governor and please identify any glaring differences between him and Obama.

You got a post from someone who wants to keep the record HONEST. The democrats funded the war from 2006 through today. Be honest and we can move on.

Now, on the subject at hand from the train wreck here. While I agree with money leaving the country due to wars and I agree about the trade deficit. I would also like the mention the 25 billion a year that leaves the US for Mexico as another issue as well as infastructure costs with supporting millions of illegal aliens. One thing you have to realize is Obama bailed out the banks in one day with almost as much money that was spent in Iraq during the entire war. The Iraq war was only 4% of GDP. It was money sure, but it was not the amount you are trying to make it out to be.

Jeremy, I think you miss the point when it comes to Republicans. We already understand that business men are NOT American first. That is what money is. It has no loyalties. With that, we at least know we want policies that brings that money home or keeps it country. That includes policies that makes it easier to do business in the US instead of moving off shore. We already know that almost all democrats are for sharing the wealth our of the country. Look at the democrats support of the UN and all share the wealth treaties and policies with other countries. The record does not lie. That is the difference. Money will screw you no matter what because people expect some sort of loyalty. That is human. You will not get it. Question is, who do you want to have it. Us or them. It would be nice if everyone could have it, but, the basic law of anything is if everyone has it then it is worth nothing.

If the Dems. are so pro middle class, why didn't we receive any money from the last stimulus package? At least when Bush was president, I got $1600 back of what I paid in. IMHO, big corps. like Obama because he provides them a blank check with our tax money--others love the promise of more social programs--so who does the leave to vote for the opposing side? Maybe the people who are actual responsible for paying the bill?

You got a post from someone who wants to keep the record HONEST. The democrats funded the war from 2006 through today. Be honest and we can move on.

I am honest. I do not believe we would have attacked Iraq if Bush wasn't president. You know that's been my point all along, but you like to muddy the issue by interjecting stuff away from my central point. And you refuse to disagree with that point.

We all know that there wouldn't have been a WWII if none of the Germans but Hitler were willing to go to war. But we all believe that Hitler was the central figure responsible for WWII. I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler by any stretch, but I think the analogy makes sense.

The oil subsidies help fund domestic drilling companies. If those subsidies are done away with, so will American jobs--not to mention that the price of oil may increase while further increasing our dependency on foreign oil. IMHO, at least that money is going to help blue collar workers feed their families instead of executives.

I am honest. I do not believe we would have attacked Iraq if Bush wasn't president. You know that's been my point all along, but you like to muddy the issue by interjecting stuff away from my central point. And you refuse to disagree with that point.

We all know that there wouldn't have been a WWII if none of the Germans but Hitler were willing to go to war. But we all believe that Hitler was the central figure responsible for WWII. I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler by any stretch, but I think the analogy makes sense.

Ron, if we give subsidies to ExxonMobil,BP, etc (who post record profits each year), then why not give subsidies to Walmart or Sears? Wouldn't that also help blue collar workers feed their families as well? I think you are reaching in your justification for oil subsidies.

Yes, but to me you are comparing apples to oranges. We need cheap energy—our entire economy revolves around it. What Obama wants to do—similar to what Jimmy Carter attempted to do--is load the playing field by demonizing the oil companies and ending all tax incentives for domestic drilling while providing more funding and tax relief for alternative fuels. As a result of loading the playing field, we get the bill for funding companies like Solyndra. At least with oil subsidies, we get oil from the deal as opposed to buying an empty building. IMHO, if we are going to end subsidies, we should end all subsidies.

And you and other GOP blowhards (I'm not calling you a GOP blowhard) need to do some research when it comes to Solyndra. The original Solyndra deal dates back to 2007 under the Bush Administration's DOE.

And you and other GOP blowhards (I'm not calling you a GOP blowhard) need to do some research when it comes to Solyndra. The original Solyndra deal dates back to 2007 under the Bush Administration's DOE.

The Energy Department's loan guarantee program was created as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Bush.

In his signing speech, Bush lauded the bill's support for clean technology, though he didn't specifically mention the loan guarantees.

The loan guarantees were designed to "support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks."

Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his 2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department issued its final rules for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.

House Republicans investigating Solyndra have claimed that the Bush administration ultimately rejected the Solyndra loan, but that's not quite the case. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and news media point out that Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door — it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information," the committee said.

It noted Solyndra's project "appears to have merit." But the clock had run out.

That didn't keep Bush from touting the loan guarantee program on his way out of office. On Jan. 6, 2009, in remarks on conservation and the environment from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, he said, "We dedicated more than $18 billion to developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power. We're providing more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to put these technologies to use."

But the Energy Department says pretty clearly that "Section 1703 and Section 1705 fall under the LGP (loan guarantee program)." We think Bush's broad support for loan guarantees for high-risk clean energy provides reasonable support for Plouffe's statement — especially since the Bush administration program also found merit in Solyndra's project."

So you are going to blame Bush again... first Obama's administration blames Bush for Fast and Furious and now Solyndra. If it was Bush's fault why would Energy Secretary Steven Chu take full responsibility for Solyndra? Why would he do that?

The real problem here isn't who did what, when, the real problem is crony capitalism and facism. If you are on Obama's good side you are okay. You will get a Obamacare waiver, you will get a government backed loan, you will get a green job... This happens in every major industry with every president. We have to get the government out of business. The government is not suppose to decide the winners and losers in industry, the free market is.

^Posting a video of a misinformed voter (she may not have voted, I don't know) doesn't help your argument. And I am not saying that Obama doesn't deserve some of the credit for the Solyndra debacle, I was simply saying that the GOP, who say they opposed the deal, were singing a different song a few years ago.

But if you want to call me "Obama fanboy", etc., I could give a crap. But it makes you look like a Hannity clone to continuously bash big government, but say nothing about the GOP, particularly the GOP presidential candidate, Etch-a-Sketch. Not one post, quote, video of Romney from you. Maybe that suggests you are Romney fanboy??

The point is your belief system is screwed up - you see everything as Obama vs. everyone else, as the GOP versus the Democrats... you are a fanboy. Instead of looking at the facts, analyzing them, and applying critical thinking you buy the Obama Administration's talking points hook, line, and sinker. You are a fanboy; furthermore, you seem to be in lockstep with the ideals of socialism. You profess your belief that people need help and can't do it on their own, that self accountability, personal freedom, and liberty are all outdated and that people should be taken care of.

I am one of the first people to say that Bush was a son of a bitch, a drunk, etc... he did more to harm our individual liberty than any president before him. The patriot act is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever voted into law. Bush was terrible in every way.

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about the government being a shock absorber. It is common sense really. Why do people feel they need government at all if it by definition is not? Reagan spent us into debt but he did what he had to do because the country needed the shock of developing new technologies and getting people back to work. With those new technologies, we were able to secure money form other countries due to trade. Thus American's prospered during the very end of the Bush era and into Clinton. The problem then happened that Clinton and W. Bush did not stop the overheated economy that was developed by government investment in the private sector in the first place. The government (since it sets the policy either way) is the shock absorber in all this. A nice even tempo is nicer than having booms and even bigger crashes. That is why the people created government in the first place. It is about the common good or you would not even have government. With that said our fore fathers understood the nature of men and sought wisely to limit the power.

The point is your belief system is screwed up - you see everything as Obama vs. everyone else, as the GOP versus the Democrats... you are a fanboy.

Hey Brainiac... It is Obama vs whatever the catch of the day at the GOP is. Obama is the President and as you are a primary exhibit... the objective of every right winger fantasy of getting out of office. The point is that being against Obama and by default for any douchbag the GOP can dredge up is an example of shallow thinking.

The GOP has done a horrible job of running this country every time they get their chance. So being for Obama vs the alternative is not a definitive indication of being a fan boy. It could just as well be a affirmation of disgust for the dysfunctional policies of the Republicans. Who in the world with a shred of intellectual integrity would want to reward a bunch of fanatical idiots who's shining display of intelligence is to make up ludicrous stories and pass them off as fact with mass spam emailing?

Of course there is nothing in the constitution about the government being a shock absorber. It is common sense really. Why do people feel they need government at all if it by definition is not? I dont feel I need government. Reagan spent us into debt but he did what he had to do because the country needed the shock of developing new technologies and getting people back to work. With those new technologies, we were able to secure money form other countries due to trade. Thus American's prospered during the very end of the Bush era and into Clinton. The problem then happened that Clinton and W. Bush did not stop the overheated economy that was developed by government investment in the private sector in the first place. The government (since it sets the policy either way) is the shock absorber in all this. A nice even tempo is nicer than having booms and even bigger crashes. That is why the people created government in the first place. Really? Again I would like to see some references to that comment. The founders created government to give the economy a "nice even tempo"? I learn something new everyday. It is about the common good or you would not even have government. See there you go again, the constitution doesnt protect the "common good" it protects individual liberties. With that said our fore fathers understood the nature of men and sought wisely to limit the power. Limit the power of government right? So everything you just said was negated by that last sentence. What part of your rational for government intervention fits in with "limit(ing) the power"? Unless of course you mean limiting the power of the individual.

You did a poor job. So you think the Constitution only protects individual liberties? Not too up on the Constitution are you, because you are way off. The Constitution enumerates the power of the govt. Even a glance at the Constitution would show you this. The bulk of it has nothing to do with protecting individual rights.

You did a poor job. So you think the Constitution only protects individual liberties? Not too up on the Constitution are you, because you are way off. The Constitution enumerates the power of the govt. Even a glance at the Constitution would show you this. The bulk of it has nothing to do with protecting individual rights.

First John, as I have said it many, many times before:

Second, why are those powers enumerated? They are enumerated to protect the individual. The Constitution lays out our form of government as Republic, not a democracy. A Republic recognizes and protects individuals, not the mob. It is you sir, that did the poor job.

Tucker, you are just digging your stupidity hole even deeper. The Constitution does not... *only* protect the individual. What's irritating is that this is obvious, only requires a cursory reading, and yet you act like you are educated about the Constitution. You don't need to be an expert on every detail in the Constitution to recognize that it does more than protect an individual's liberty.

Tucker, you are just digging your stupidity hole even deeper. The Constitution does not... *only* protect the individual. What's irritating is that this is obvious, only requires a cursory reading, and yet you act like you are educated about the Constitution. You don't need to be an expert on every detail in the Constitution to recognize that it does more than protect an individual's liberty.

Where did I say only, you Marxist blankety-blank?

What classes have you taken on the Constitution? When did you get your law degree? I'll get mine in December and have 4.33 so far.

Adam. You must pretty new around here. I don't think you understand who you are trying to argue with in regards to my feelings on the government. I can play you game if you want but I am going to laugh my ass off when you go back and read my thousands of posts on these subjects and realize what you are trying to argue. Of course if you are one of those staunch liberatarians then I can not help you because that is nearly the same exact ying to a liberal yang. Both points of view as an absolute are ignorant.

So without further ado. I will argue with you.

You don't feel like you need the government then you feel wrong. you are using the government developed internet right now to argue with me in regards to your feelings of weather or not you need the government. You take your fire protection and police for granted? You take the national energy policy for granted? How about that national currency? How about the United States Navy, Army, Marines, or Air Force? How about laws that keep me from taking what I feel is mine that you may own? To say you do not need the government is completely ignorant.

Let me ask you this. Do you like having big market and housing crashes or did you support Clinton's easing of the money supply to low income people that ultimately lead to normal people getting priced out of the housing market and then the ultimate collapse? Should the government completely deregulate all markets so companies like Enron could make fake outages so they could charge more for energy from consumers? How about allowing monopolies? Should be allow one big company not allow smaller companies to compete what so ever because they own the politicians and squash the little guys?

You obviously don't understand how the government works because they have been doing it way before any of our grandfathers were alive. They have been the keepers of monetary policy since invented. So if you are just now learning that, you must of went to school in some back country holler...

Sounds to me that you cannot seem to comprehend that the common good can mean individual liberty. You must have some sort of hangup. I personally believe that my rights are common good. Now with that said, if you are approaching it from the childish liberatarian view, then it is a absolute view and that would never stand in a civil society because there is no such thing as a lack of cause and effect. Your absolute rights are not absolute all the time.

Now on your last argument, Why does the government limiting power mean limiting the freedom of an individual when my whole discussion was about federal monitary policy. You obviously are trying to move around the meaning of my words to try and fit your definition and they trying to argue that point. Is that the definition of a straw man argument?

"Of couse, this is from FOX news http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2...-solyndra-loan"

No Ron, you posted a link from Fox Nation which is mostly bloggers. If you are questioning my source, it is from Politifact, which from what I can tell, is more right-leaning.

"A Republic recognizes and protects individuals, not the mob. It is you sir, that did the poor job."

Maybe in some kind of crazy, outlandish, theoretical reasoning, but not here in the real world. Doesn't the "mob" elect the most popular candidate to represent them in office? What does this say for said "individual" that didn't support the elected official?

Actually, it turns out what I am saying is in the a certain document there Adam. I stole if from the other thread:

Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [boldface added]

Clause 2: “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”

Immediately after Clauses 1 & 2 follows the list of enumerated powers WE delegated to Congress:

Clause 3: To regulate “commerce” [For the Truth about the “commerce clause”, go here];
Clause 4: To establish uniform laws on Naturalization and on Bankruptcies;
Clause 5: To coin money & regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights & measures;
Clause 6: To punish counterfeiting;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights;
Clause 9: To set up federal courts “inferior” to the supreme Court [one may well ask how any court can be “inferior” to the supreme Court];
Clause 10: To punish Piracies & Felonies on the high seas and offenses against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque & Reprisal, and make rules for Captures;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To call forth the Militia; and
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, disciplining the Militia.

Maybe in some kind of crazy, outlandish, theoretical reasoning, but not here in the real world. Doesn't the "mob" elect the most popular candidate to represent them in office? What does this say for said "individual" that didn't support the elected official?

NO! We have a representative government not a mob controlled government. The rights of the individual are protected; otherwise, the majority would always have their way. Instead we have a series of checks and balances where no one branch of government has total control. Our government is suppose to be limited in its power. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, protecting the individual. As your hero Obama once stated:

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnít that radical. It didnít break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as itís been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states canít do to you. Says what the federal government canít do to you, but doesnít say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." - Obama

Your rights are preserved in the Constitution since the Federal Government is limited in what it can do. You need to read about Madison and the Bill of Rights to actually understand what and why we have a Bill of Rights.

Quote:

What does this say for said "individual" that didn't support the elected official?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it not an American tradition to question authority, question the rules, and to question the status quo? The First Amendment confirmed our God given right to the freedom of speech, it appears that you don't understand or know why? This is a direct example of your ignorance. You seem to know so little about this country, your rights, and our history it is truly astonishing. Even more so is your total lack of interest and slothness. Get off your butt and actually learn the facts, question everything and everyone. Try actually learning something.

Sam, I am going to be a little blunt here but, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME. I will put my knowledge of US History (well any subject for that matter) against yours any day. You pay thousands for an online education for Mises, when you could get it free from Google and the public library. You read some author's opinion piece that happens to coincide with your kooky beliefs and you think that is etched in stone. Why not take an hour or two and form your own opinion? It will make you seem more informed and less like a Glen Beck clone. I think it is hypocrytical of you to comment on someone's ignorance (for the simple fact they don't agree with you) when you haven't had one genuine idea of your own since I have been reading your mindless drivel for the past three years. "I am a politician", "I am an oil tycoon", "I have a PhD in US History", blah, blah, blah. In case you haven't realized it, the only person you are impressing is yourself. No one else gives a sheet. The truly amazing thing about guys like you is if you would step back and look at yourself, you could see how douchie you rhetoric is.